Consolidated Roller-Mill Co.

In equity. Asserted patents were Gray 222,895, Dowling 289,518, and Marmon 274,508. US 265,927 was not asserted; the court relied on it as anticipatory prior art against Marmon 274,508. Decree for plaintiff on the Gray patent; bill dismissed as to the Dowling and Marmon patents.

Patent infringement suit. Asserted patents were Gray 222,895, Gray 238,677, Odell reissue 10,139, and Birkholz 269,628. Bill dismissed for want of equity; patents held anticipated/void and no infringement. US 265,927 was not named among the patents sued on.

Equity suit in which U.S. Patent No. 289,518 (Dowling) was held invalid for want of invention and the bill was dismissed as to the Dowling and Marmon patents. Only the Gray patent (No. 222,895), claims 2–5, was sustained; an ancillary motion to stay the injunction pending appeal (39 F. 803) was denied.

Related suit against the maker of the mill accused in Coombs, on the same four patents asserted in the Michigan case. The reported opinion addresses only the Gray patent, and the motion for preliminary injunction was denied on bond; Dowling 289,518's presence in the asserted set is not expressly confirmed in the report.

Consolidated Roller-Mill Co. sought a preliminary injunction against George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. on U.S. Patent 222,895. The court denied the injunction, holding the Gray patent did not cover machines lacking the claimed lever or swinging arm and rod adjustment features, and addressed a res adjudicata/comity objection from the Wisconsin case.